Ling 3.0 Flash vs LongCat 2.0
Ling 3.0 Flash leads LongCat 2.0 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 20.1 to 19.1, and Ling 3.0 Flash costs 9.9x less per output token ($0.1215 vs $1.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 7 benchmarks have a result for both.
Ling 3.0 Flash or LongCat 2.0: which to pick
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; LongCat 2.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick LongCat 2.0 for a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens) and work measured by Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 7
- Ling 3.0 Flash only
- 17
- LongCat 2.0 only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 5 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash leads, 20.1 against 19.1.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash leads, 19.3 against 14.0.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a GPQA Diamond result, 84.8%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a MMLU Pro result, 82.0%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
LongCat 2.0
LongCat 2.0 takes 1.05M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash $0.0001, LongCat 2.0 $0.0009 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has the number, $0.05.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.0 Flash 29.6 from 2 benchmarks, LongCat 2.0 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 8.8 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run): Ling 3.0 Flash 23.7% against LongCat 2.0 33.7%, 10.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.0 Flash $0.1215 against LongCat 2.0 $1.20 per million output tokens, 9.9x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.0 Flash takes 262K tokens, LongCat 2.0 1.05M.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Ling 3.0 Flash | Bars | LongCat 2.0 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 1 | ||
| General | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 6 | 1 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 50.6 | 45.3 | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 84.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 65.2% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 2.9% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 50.2% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | 27.9% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| SciCode | 42.0% | 36.3% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 793.5 | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 20.1 | 19.1 | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 19.3 | 14.0 | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 30.3% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 25.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 84.8% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 85.5% | 78.0% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 23.7% | 33.7% | LongCat 2.0 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 14 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 82.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 79.7% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 61.9% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 70.7% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 32.3% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 50.7% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 80.9% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 73.0% | 65.0% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 45 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | inclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash | Meituan LongCat 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Meituan |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | July 23, 2026 | July 20, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.0405 | $0.30 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.1215 | $1.20 |
| Coding index | 29.6 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.05 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Ling 3.0 Flash better than LongCat 2.0 for coding?
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; LongCat 2.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick LongCat 2.0 for a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens) and work measured by Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.0 Flash or LongCat 2.0?
Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.0405 per million input tokens and $0.1215 per million output tokens; LongCat 2.0 costs $0.30 and $1.20. Cost per solved task is known for Ling 3.0 Flash only.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.0 Flash or LongCat 2.0?
LongCat 2.0, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.0 Flash vs LongCat 2.0 comparison based on?
7 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Ling 3.0 Flash's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and LongCat 2.0's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.